The IP ADR Blog : Intellectual Property Alternative Dispute Resolution Lawyer & Attorney : IP ADR : The IP ADR Blog

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

DRAFTING AND NEGOTIATING LICENSING AGREEMENTS
May 24 - 25, 2009
Dubai Sheraton Creek Hotel
Dubai City, UAE

Based on his extensive corporate and law firm licensing experience, Paul Jorgensen of The Jorgensen Law Firm PLLC will present this intensive, two day seminar to licensing executives, administrators and lawyers who want more accurate agreements, better license negotiations, and more efficient license programs.

Hosted by The Licensing Executives Society– Arab Countries (LES-AC) in cooperation with Dubai Chamber of Commerce & Industry, this course will empower attendees to write clearer, to understand license elements and their importance to an entire agreement, to negotiate licenses effectively, and to track license performance efficiently.

Register here!

IP LICENSING: HOW TO AVOID THE TEN MOST FREQUENTLY LITIGATED PROVISIONS
June 4, 2009
ALI-ABA Teleseminar

Building an effective IP license requires recognizing provisions that can plunge clients into expensive disputes.  With licenses too-often overloaded with dense legalese and inapplicable boilerplate provisions, however, finding those dangerous provisions can be difficult for both the attorney and the client.  

Paul will chair a panel that that will zero in on those provisions and the reasons they can cause trouble in this teleseminar, presented by the American Law Institute-American Bar Association.  Drawing on their experiences in drafting, negotiating, administering and litigating IP licenses, the panel members will also provide guidelines to re-write or eliminate these dangerous provisions. 

Registration will open soon here.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

If you'd like to learn how WIPO mediation cases have been resolved, WIPO has posted mediation case studies of patent, copyright, telecom, biotech, IT, trademark co-existence, pharma licensing, and telecom patent licensing disputes.

These brief case studies should be of use to corporate executives, General Counsel, outside counsel, mediators and arbitrators alike.

In the current economic downturn, we need all the help we can get in resolving disputes as efficiently and effectively as possible.  Mediation isn't always the answer, of course, and must be timed when the case is "ripe" for settlement.  If you're leery of mediation's ability to resolve your dispute, take a look at the WIPO case study (on the same linked page above) on a copyright mediation followed by an expedited arbitration.

Good stuff.  Check it out!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It's free.  It really is!

Dickstein Shapiro has just released its 2008 Intellectual Property Primer: An Introduction to Intellectual Property for In-house Counsel was prepared by the Firm’s Intellectual Property attorneys. The complimentary multi-chapter resource is available for download from Dickstein Shapiro’s Web site. 

Go here to register for your free IP Primer.  It's amazingly comprehensive.

 

 

For questions or more information, please contact Dickstein at info@dicksteinshapiro.com.

Thanks for passing this along, honey.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Thanks to Jackie Hutter of the IP Asset Maximizer for her unique perspective on the Ninth Circuit's recent laches decision

"Perhaps I am uniquely qualified to respond to this post," writes Jackie.  

I wrote the (losing) brief in the case that established laches in Lanham Act in the 11th Cir.  The case is Kason v. Component Hardware Group.

Laches is no doubt a real legal argument, but if someone has to argue that it is not too late to bring a Lanham Act suit in this day and age, I would tend to agree that the suit is at its core likely an attempt to use the courts to inflict commercial pain on a competitor.  That is, there is no reason in today's information age that a business should not know what their competitors are up to in the market place.  And, if they fail to keep tabs on their competitors, the courts should not serve as a vehicle to do to a competitor what the plaintiff could not itself do to the competitor in the free market. 
.

In my laches experience, the plaintiff was mad that my client was selling replacement parts at a lower price than its "authorized" parts.  The plaintiff could not have protected the parts with patents because the parts were not unique enough to be patentable.  Instead, the plaintiff used the federal courts to try to get my competitor's lower priced goods off of the market.  Put simply, the plaintiff wasn't willing to let competition prevail but, instead, wanted the courts to put my client out of business so the plaintiff could reap a higher price.  Laches came in because my client had been selling the replacement parts for 10 or more years, but the plaintiff did not see them as a threat until the plaintiff started losing market share to my client.  The lawsuit was the plaintiff's way of holding onto its market share in the face of increasing competition.

The net result of the lawsuit was several years of expensive litigation.  The plaintiff did prevail on some of its Lanham Act claims (the law allowed broader trade dress rights at that time), but neither company was happy in the end.  Indeed, the only happy parties were the lawyers because we made lots of money on the case.

At the end of the day, this lawsuit was, as Eric Schmidt of Google indicates, a way to have the courts do what the parties would not be able to do in the free marketplace.  Laches is a real legal concept, but it is not rational today. 

See Jackie's recent thoughts about IP management in the economic downturn in Business Week: "Readers at the Whiteboard" here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks (1)

See yesterday's opinion Internet Specialties West, Inc. v. Milon-DiGirgio Enterprises, Inc.

There's a vigorous dissent from Justice Kleinfeld culminating in this prediction of the majority opinion's affect on trademark law, particularly as it effects internet marks:

The majority’s evisceration of laches means that a big company can lurk in the tall grass while its little prey gradually fattens itself by dint of great effort and expense. Then, when the small competitor has succeeded, the big company can shake it down for a cut of its hard-won success, or destroy the name under which it innocently did business for years. That is trademark law as protection racket, rather than trademark law as prevention of consumer confusion.

The ADR lesson?  There's a story of fierce business competition here fought out between two internet providers (living in the 21st century) and decided by the narrowest margin based on rules (laches) forged before the industrial revolution. 

Only the parties know whether the Plaintiff was aiming to "shake down" its competitor or had other motives to take the considerable risk of exposing its commercial future to the decision, first, of a federal court judge and then to a three-justice federal appeals court panel. 

Though commercial enterprises badly need clear rules of law to guide their present activities and chart a profitable future, they should never forget Google exec Eric Schmidt's observation that litigation is just a "business negotiation being conducted in the Courts" -- the litigation simply one bargaining chip of many to be used in negotiating a commercial solution to a justice problem - one that will avoid - if possible - zero sum outcomes on technical legal issues of no genuine interest to business people.

Dissenters from that view?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

We talk a lot here at IP ADR about ascertaining and fulfilling party interests to help you settle your patent, trademark, copyright or trade name and trade dress litigation.  As Entrepreneurship Magazine recently reported in getting into the mind of your negotiating counterpart, knowing your negotiating partner's desires, aims, goals, needs and fears (its interests) will go a long way to getting you the best deal available.

Getting a solid grasp on the other party's interests will help you:

* Determine what you have or can do that might be of value to them, which can make it easier to figure out how best to get what you want;

* Craft deals that acceptably satisfy the other party's interests, which will increase the likelihood that the deal will be sustainable (since the other party will be motivated by their own self-interest to successfully implement the deal);

* Uncover potential sources of value that might otherwise have been missed, which will increase your ability to invent creative, value-maximizing solutions.

Now, thanks to Las Vegas Trademark Attorney's recent post welcoming Michael Hall to the Trademark Blogosphere [Registration Ruminations]we learn how to Help[] Yourself by Helping Examining Attorneys.  In other words, by satisfying examining attorneys' "earned point" interests.

Back in December 1997, Fordham University School of Law hosted a discussion at which Judge Quinn of the TTAB and other panelists spoke about PTO practice.  Richard Friedman, a former examining attorney who had moved on to the NBA (as counsel, not a player!) explained how it works:

[I]f an examining attorney pulls an application that is in perfect order and can be passed right to publication, that is two points for the attorney.  The examining attorneys love that.  They are already thinking ahead to their bonus at the end of the year when they do something like that.

So your job should be to concentrate on making an application two-points perfect. . . .

Let’s say some kind of substantive refusal area comes up, but it is a gray area — not the easy section 2(d) case or the easy descriptiveness refusal.  Let’s say the examining attorney pulls an application that is in a gray area, but everything else is okay.  The examining attorney is apt to say, “All right, I am going to take my chance and not send the refusal so I can get those two points for that first-action publication.”

If, however, there are other things wrong in the application papers, little stuff, and they are going to have to send you a letter anyway, then they might as well put in the substantive refusal to cover themselves.  That is the way things work, whether we on the outside like it or not.

Discussion, Trademark Prosecution in the Patent and Trademark Office and Litigation in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 8 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 451, 461 (Winter 1998).

In 2005, The Trademark Reporter published an article on the registration of product configuration trade dress with respect to three product types.  For one, the authors specifically observed:

To the extent one central theme existed, those who submitted their evidence of acquired distinctiveness at the time of filing the application, or before USPTO examination, appeared to avoid any challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence provided.

Karen Feisthamel, Amy Kelly, & Johanna Sistek, Trade Dress 101: Best Practices for the Registration of Product Configuration Trade Dress With the USPTO, 95 Trademark Rep. 1374, 1383 (November - December 2005).

This particular study involved a narrow field, but the authors’ observation makes perfect sense if you’re looking at it from an examining attorney’s perspective.  As Richard Friedman said, “The way to make your life easier when prosecuting trademarks at the PTO is to make the examining attorneys’ lives easier.”  Needless to say, following this strategy does not remotely guarantee that you won’t receive a refusal, and obviously there will sometimes be good reason to file an application that you know will result in an office action.  However, it puts you in a position where the examining attorney might be inclined to resolve a close question in your favor.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Take the Art of the Deposition at Solo Practice University!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Mediation is all about story, even when everyone thinks it's only about money. Here's the story of ADR Services, Inc., which I joined today, and its dynamic founder and CEO, Lucie Baron. From ADR Services' Website, one of those stories that you must meet the hero of to believe.

About ADR Services, Inc.

Lucie Barron, our founder and President, has quite a compelling story to tell. A single mother with seven young children, her indoctrination to the legal system came during a fee dispute with her lawyer, who was seeking additional compensation. A formidable competitor even then, she went about the daunting task of reconstructing the file on her case, arguing that she had actually been overcharged. The panel agreed, dismissing the attorney's claim and awarding for her.

ADR Services, Inc. had humble beginnings in 1994, sub-leasing a couple of rooms from a law firm and handling cases on a catch as catch can basis for a handful of retired judges who agreed to work through its panel. Until recently and a maturing of the marketplace, the company managed the impossible, virtually doubling in size every year. Today, the ADR Services, Inc. panel consists of more than 150 neutrals, both retired judges and attorneys throughout the state.   

A highly visible player in the ADR market, Ms. Barron is indefatigable, working countless hours while seemingly attending every industry event. In February 2007 the company headquarters moved to a beautiful new suite of offices in Century City that is 50% larger than before, and a new, Northern California office opened in April 2006 in San Francisco. After the addition of offices in Downtown Los Angeles, San Diego, and Las Vegas, ADR Services opened its newest office in Orange County in 2007. The company projects to administer more than 7,500 cases in 2008.

Originally from Australia, Lucie Barron was a psychologist by training with an MBA from McGill University, Canada and had a keen eye for business. Ms. Barron needed to find a way to support her children, and she realized that ADR was important for business and a legal trend. After spending months devouring any information she could find on the subject at UCLA business and law schools, she wrote to a list of retired judges and invited them to join her fledgling panel. Enticed by her vision and determination, eight judges initially agreed to join what has now become the fastest growing ADR provider in California.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Nobody does it better (Colin Samuels aside)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks